Commentary: Moral Consensus Elusive in Public Life

• Date: 01 May 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12228
• Author: Rex Smith
• Published date: 01 May 2014

382 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014

Rex Smith

Times Union

Mention morality in public life, and people

generally think of bad behavior by politi-

cians—of immorality, that is, such as sexual

misconduct, bribe taking, and the most widespread of

immoral political practices, pandering.

But while we can easily agree on what is immoral—

a congressman texting pictures of his genitals, a

governor taking kickbacks, a politician of any sort

telling us what we want to hear by oversimplifying

an issue (which makes us feel so good that we try not

to notice)—we are rarely of one mind in what we con-

sider moral.

And that is why it is hard to envision how the admi-

rable notion advanced by Paul Nieuwenburg in his

article “Conf‌l icts of Values and Political Forgiveness”

might progress from paper to practice. One struggles

to imagine establishing a standard of political morality

in a pluralistic society, at least one so widely shared

that its violation would trigger some sort of forgive-

ness mechanism. It is almost as though Nieuwenburg

is proposing a cure without def‌i ning the illness.

For example: Is it moral for America to use unmanned

drones to attack military targets in Afghanistan? Yes,

some say, because the policy’s skillful use can reduce

terrorist threats to peace at a lower risk to U.S. forces

than conventional weapons. No, others say, because

it dehumanizes and thus facilitates warfare and leaves

more civilians on the ground at lethal risk.

Certainly it is useful to weigh how we as citizens

respond to the kind of decision making in the public

arena that does not come easily or that arises amid

alternatives that may all seem morally right, or at least

not wholly wrong. We need to think about how we

respond to public servants who arrive at morally com-

plex conclusions that could be called wrong.

Nieuwenburg acknowledges at the outset the sad

truth that politics tends to be hostile to public serv-

ants who venture beyond the certainty of black-and-

white and into the real world of full-color decision

making.

While “it is in the interest of citizens to have mor-

ally sensitive of‌f‌i cials running their constitution,”

he writes, “such of‌f‌i cials face no better fate than

those who lack this sensitivity.”  is observation

suggests that in Nieuwenburg’s home countr y, the

Netherlands, as in the United States, voters usually

turn aside candidates they judge to be insuf‌f‌i ciently

dogmatic toward our predisposed notions. In the

Moral Consensus Elusive in Public Life

Commentary

Rex Smith, longtime political journalist,

is editor of Times Union in Albany,

New York, which he has led to numerous

state and national awards for both print

and digital journalism. Earlier in his career,

he was television reporter and producer in

the metropolitan New York City area, and

for four years, he was senior advisor to a

U.S. congressman from Indiana. He earned

a master’s degree with highest honors from

the Columbia University Graduate School of

Journalism and an undergraduate degree

cum laude from Trinity University in San

Antonio, Texas.

E-mail: rsmith@timesunion.com

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 74, Iss. 3, pp. 382–383. © 2014 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12228.